I also spent some time playing pickup basketball and watching basketball last week. Perhaps influenced by the theoretical physics embedded deep within my subconscious after thinking about acrobats and fleas, I realized basketball is likely a much better game in an alternate dimension. As long as its less sticky.
I'm 5'7", slightly overweight, and extremely unathletic. However, I have the ability to be in an advantageous position in basketball where should I position myself outside a certain point from the basket and make a shot I will be awarded one more point than a shot that is made from inside that designated distance. Thanks to my physically unimposing figure, often times I am left unguarded alone in the corner where I mange to shoot a respectfully mediocre percentage. This turns me into a threat. This is great for me, but this advantage exists in no other sport and it's about time basketball gets with the picture. Distance, while often correlated with difficulty in plenty of other sports, is rarely associated with an increase in value.
Cristiano Ronaldo can slot home a free kick from 25 yards or leap over a center back on a near post run off a corner to score goals. Each feat only counts as a single goal. An empty netter in hockey from Sergei Bobrovsky that was inches away from icing isn't worth an extra point than a bardown snipe courtesy of Cam Atkinson from the left circle (I used examples from the official NHL team of the Athletic Acumen because the league doesn't brand itself well enough to provide a better example. Sad!). Stephen Gostkowski kicking a 50 yard field goal is half as valuable on the scoreboard as a goal line fade pass from Tom Brady to Rob Gronkowski. A Bubba Watson 375 yard drive is one stroke on the scorecard as is a ten foot sidewinder putt drained by Jordan Spieth. In fact, you could make the argument in all those cases the closer to pay dirt example is more challenging, physically imposing, and/or expressive of the difference between the quality of play in professionals and amateurs.
I realize it sounds like I'm joining the cast of old timers who argue Steph Curry, the Houston Rockets, and AAU teams across the country are putting basketball on a fast track to the nadir of its history with three pointers galore, but personally, I'm arguing for equality. I want to be treated with the same sort of aspiration crushing reality in basketball that I'm currently offered in every other sport yielded by my lack of athleticism. I believe this is done not by eliminating the three point line. That's regression. We're looking for revolution. That's why I propose basketball consider any shot outside of the arc be worth two points. Any shot inside would then be worth three points in this great, new world.
Preposterous, insanity, or ridiculous are definitely some adjectives that would show up on the Family Feud answers to that idea if it was asked to a bunch of fans. But stay with me for a minute, and don't forget about the previous arguments made in regards to the relationship between distance and difficulty.
Layups or dunks, especially at the highest levels of basketball, are rarely easy. They often are the product of an impressive crossover, a blur of a first step, or require massive contact absorption when pulled off in a one on one situation. Other times a well timed backdoor cut and perfect pass lead to an easy look. Far more difficult than an uncontested three pointer, even a three ball with a hand in the shooter's face, analysts rave about the mid-range jumper, too. That's a shot only in the arsenals of the game's elites.
Other instances of layups, whether a result of a turnover leading to a fastbreak opportunity, a defensive lapse, or a lack of effort on the defensive boards, should also be punished as they are in other sports. Think of a blown coverage in the secondary, a terribly thrown interception leading to a pick six, a poorly timed line change allowing an easy breakaway, or a hanging curveball left belt high. The opposition is awarded in a far bigger way in all these other sports compared to basketball where the other team is essentially conceding a point by taking a layup over a transition three pointer.
I'll concede this is a half baked idea in its current form. Debates would rage about changing the number of free throws awarded on a shooting foul. Adding an extra one would only further draw out college games to unbearable lengths. There would likely be far more fouls catalyzing a discussion about increasing the requisite number of fouls for disqualification. Some teams may attempt to sign only the tallest people in the game. Half court buzzer beaters to force overtime or win games would happen in fewer scenarios. Are these sacrifices worth it? That's a question for a meeting of the minds I can't yet assemble. But if the revolution gains some momentum, who knows what we could be capable of achieving.
I imagine my version of basketball consisting of vicious, posterizing dunks on a nightly basis. I imagine it inspiring the next generation of All Stars to master eighteen foot fadeaways and opposite handed reverse layups. I imagine James Naismith himself will rise from the dead to see his new and improved product in the flesh. It may seem like lunacy to alter the rules of a heralded, global sport, but I believe this drastic change is exactly what's needed to rid basketball of its free handouts to my unathletic brethren.
They couldn't save Barb, but we can save basketball. Join the movement.
J. Nave
